tv [untitled] May 16, 2013 12:30am-1:01am PDT
that it is just as you plan, large balances in our water enterprise, nearly 300,000,000 dollars with the bosco repayment, used exactly as you approved. this is the very first time in history that we have actually had every single checkmark boxed in the scorecard and the report card of how reserves are satisfying all the key reserve ratios, resolutions on that. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president torres: any questions? >> i would like to congratulate you on that. those important data that you have given us. that is quite remarkable. >> president torres: well done. >> thank you. >> my next item is julie labonte, -- update. >> good afternoon commissioners, my remarks will be brief.
i think your packet includes a copy of our latest quarterly report and i wanted to point out the fact that that report includes the latest budget and schedule, revised, did you approved in late april. also the report includes some format changes at the front to address in particular one of the recommendations by bosco related to project contingencies. we now have a more detailed accounting of the contingency remaining in our program. finally, i also wanted you to know that we are currently working on two documents, a change notice report to the state that will be completed by the end of june; the report will highlight the impacts on -- goals that the project delays will have. i want to reiterate that those los goals have been changed,
achieving full reliability according to those goals has been delayed because of our project delay and that will be documented. there is also a memo forthcoming to the commission that will address some of the recommendations that bosco have put forth earlier this year when you proved some revisions to the -- project. those documents are in progress and should be completed by the end of the fiscal year. that is all i have. >> president torres: any questions? thank you very much. >> that concludes our report. any public comments? seeing none we will proceed to item 8. >> consent agenda,
there will be no separate discussion of these items was a member of the commission so requests in which case the matter will be removed from the calendar considered separately. >> president torres: anybody wishes to remove an item? any motions? second? any public comments? all those in favor? alop opposed?motion carries. item 9. >> authorizing the general manager the authority to execute an amendment . (reading from the agenda) >> president torres: welcome mr. cruz. >> good morning mr. president, members of the commission. it has been the policy of your commission and the puc's
practice to extend opportunities to the communities in which we work in which we serve. in addition to our efforts at the mayors office of economic development we have partnered with a -- organization to assist with grassroots efforts and to work with local, organized labor. a week ago in fact friday i was related to be at the breakfast of champions down and san mateo county, were job trained recognizes seven cisco public utilities commission as the employer of the year because we threw our contractors hired 96 graduate, full-time, blue-collar working wage jobs working on such projects as harry tracy. through our contractors work we have been able to extend his
opportunities to the communities in which we work. through our partnership we have hired 300 people who were previously unemployed, underemployed are making the transition from a correctional institution to full-time employment . we have representatives from three of our partner organizations, job-training, youth build and cypress mandela. those organizations cover san mateo, san joaquin, alameda and san francisco county. >> is there a motion? >> i will move it. i think is also appropriate for the people in those organizations to stand and be recognized. >> president torres: thank you
commissioner moran. (applause) >> it has been moved in seconded. we are going to vote on it. all those in favor? alop opposed?you have helped the motion carried. thank you. item 10. >> approve amendment number 1 to amend cs 946 increasing the agreement by 500,000 dollars. >> steve ritchie, assistant city manager for water. this is for continuation of our work on the upper -- river they can share our flow releases of providing the best habitat value downstream from our dams. >> president torres: is there a motion? >> so moved. >> seconded.
>> president torres: seconded by commissioner vietor. public comments on item 10? there being none, alif all those in favor?alop opposed?motion carries. item 11. >> approving construction contract, bioregional habitat restoration. >> mr. cruz. > emilio cruz. during construction we had a major storm. as part of the storm there was damage done to the construction site and some of the environmental components of our project. he item before you simply to make a change order with the existing contractor repair the damages that happened during this natural storm in order to
have the project when it is completed meet all of our goals. >> president torres: any discussion? >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner vietor, seconded by commissioner moran. any public comments? all those in favor? alop opposed?motion is carried. item 12. >> consider and adopt the proposed wholesale revenue requirement for fiscal year 2013-14. >> mr. rydstrom. >> the item before you is a material you reviewed the last meeting and requires adoption by this body reflecting what is a 16 percent decrease in the rates as well as the updated rate for late charges and a discount for untreated water as we do each year. happy to answer any questions. >> president torres: any questions? motion? moved by commissioner caen,
seconded by commissioner moran. any public comments? there being none all of those in favor seemed five by saying aye. opposed? motion carries. move to item 13. motion to approve -- i'm sorry. public comment on matters to be discussed in close session. alright, i need a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> motion. >> second. all those in favor? >> item 18 anticipated litigation as, find this item 19, item 20,
consultation with agen >> we're back. motion to reveal? >> motion not to disclose. >> president torres: all those in favor? >> we are announcing action was taken on items 16 and 17. any other business? >> we referenced the communication received from the san francisco labor council, item cca hearing on the agenda. i wanted to make a reference because i am an elected member of the san francisco labor council. i was not in
evaporating. it would go a long way to gettting us to where we need to be by staffing picking up these 3 short items. >> president torres: without objection that should be the oder. >> i have a quesiton. it doesn't say here, they are asking us to reject the contract with shell. i don't know the origin of that. i don't know if the staff could uncover what some of the reasons are for the labor council taking that position. is there some issue they have with shell? >> that should be the order.
>> i intentionally avoided asking any conversation because we have the obligation to continue these negotiations in good faith and wanted to focus on those principles. we are trying to move the ball forward. i understand those comments. i'd be fine if we didn't open that door. >> it may be open by testimony at the public hearing. >> that should be the order. we are adjourned.
>> the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco transportation authority occurring may 6, 2013, will begin shortly. >> good morning, today is monday may 6, 2013, and welcome to the personnel committee of the san francisco transportation authority. my name is avalos, the chair of this committee and the authority. joined to my left by commissioner cohen, and david campos will be joined shortly by weiner and mar.
>> and the clerk is cheng and we also broadcast today by sfgtv staff. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> there are no announce.s. >> if we could go to the second item. >> approve the minutes of the april 1, 2013, this is an action item. >> colleagues, any comments or questions on the minutes? >> we can go into public comment on item two on our minutes and seeing no member of the public to come forward we can close public comment. could we have a motion? >> motion, and second. >> item three. >> recommend adoption of the revised salary structure. >> according to authority's personnel manual the review of the structure is performed to
compare the salaries against other agencies. the authorities board last had a revision six years ago in may of 2007, the authority, does not follow the step compensation structure, instead we follow on the job performance, structure, and if there are enough budget, we would approve any adjustments there. and in 2012, we hired cough and associates in compensation studies. they took a look at 18 of the 19 authority job positions, the one position that was not reviewed is the executive director. it included comprehensive review of the job classifications, description and base compensation and benefits. >> i would like to welcome katie to walk you through the report which starts on page 11 of your packet.
>> thank you. >> good morning, to the members of the committee, my name is katie keneco, i am the president of cough and associates and the manager for this study. thank you. that we performed for san francisco county transportation authority. i want to talk to you about the process and the methodology for this study before we begin, a compensation study we work to determine three variables, one is which agencies we are going to be studying as part of this process. and we chose seven agencies that we felt best represented the labor market for the authority. we were looking at factors that just focus services and population serves and ties to the agency and budget, and geographic proximity is important with the bay area being a fairly distinct market. the seven that we chose are
alamena transportation, san francisco municipal agency, conser authority, and lngs tras pourtation, mtc, sanmatao, and the santa clara valley, transportation authority. we also needed to work with the agency to determine which classifications we would be serving in the market. and because of the variety of classifications and their unique, we usually survey two-thirds, and in this case we did 14 out of the 18. we did not look at the executive director. and we also worked with them to determine what types of benefits we would be surveying. we wanted to look at top monthly salary, of course and we also looked at the cost of benefits in each of these
agencies towards retirement, the insurance as sufficient as medical, vision and life and employee assistance plan and any leaves that they offer. so this would be vacation, holiday, and any administrative leave which is sometimes offered to those in select classifications. so, after these variables were determined, we went and collected the data. we studied the classifications, the current classifications descriptions of the authority and got to know the body of work being performed there and we went and looked specifically not just at titles but at the purpose for the positions, the types of dutis that they are performing, education and experience and any licensing and certifications and with all of that knowing that they are not the same we chose that we felt were 70 percent similar and we collected this data and presented it in three spread sheets, one that summarizes the
top monthly salary and one that summarized the information and total compensation. what we found out of the 14 benchmarks is that 13 of the 14 classifications were below the market. there were three of them that were within five percent, we do consider within five percent to be competitive. and then, out of the total compensation, all 14 of the classifications were below market. we found that in the benefits area there were a few benefits that were more significantly below market that the agency, the contribution to medical insurance, for instance, was significantly lower than the average of the comparative agencies and the contribution towards management leave. it was also lower than the other agencies. but in the end, the authority decided that... >> what we have here in san francisco? the ta is lower than the other agencies?
>> correct. but we decided then that we were going to separate out, the benefit and base salary and just make any recommendation to the structure to be based on benefits only. so with that, we went ahead and created a salary structure, ranges that are two and a half percent apart and 35 percent wide and we inserted all of the classifications system into the system. which is what is being presented to you today. i think that structure is on page 79. in your packet. so, we are showing you here is what the current maximum monthly salary is, what the market placement, and the market median is what we use to make the recommendation and we feel that this best represents the labor market that it is not undually influenced by the very, very high and low salaries like the average would
be. so this gives you information for each of the classifications. and there are four benchmarks, or four classifications that were not bench marked. we felt like we had enough market data to internally align them, based on common market differentials that we will see in the class series. for instance, the planners, the planner and the principle planner were not surveyed but we got the information on the senior planner and we could apply differentials between, the senior planner to make a recommendation for the principal and the planner. any questions on the information or? ... >> any comments or questions? >> so just to go over this chart on page 79, the left side is what is the current maximum monthly salary within the transportation authority for these positions? >> exactly. >> the next column is the median for the market. and all of these agencies that
you mentioned which in most cases is higher, except for the first, right? >> right. >> and the proposed minimum salary is actually the minimum so it is lower than what we see with the current maximum. >> yes that is the minimum of the range that we created. >> then for the max um is what is correct and then you have the next column is the difference between the current maximum and... >> the proposed maximum and the current, yes. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> okay. no other questions or comments from the committee, we can continue with mr. kevin torer. >> thank you for your presentation and your work on this. >> in terms of fiscal impact, the revised salary structure does not have an immediate budget impact. because they are granted for performance not for inflation or cost of living adjustments. we are seeking a recommendation
to adopt the revised structure on page 79 and we are more than happy to answer any of your questions. >> okay, thank you. let's go into public comment. any member of the public who would like to comment on this item please come forward? >> and seeing none, we will close public comment. >> okay, colleagues this item is lie before us. i actually appreciate the work of the group that you have provided to us in terms of a new structure and that would be supportive of that in light of that we have had any adjustments since 2007, and it seems that it is time and we are seeing numbers that are well below what other agencies in the surrounding market provide in terms of salaries. so i would be supportive of that. commissioner campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a quick question, and i too support the proposal. what is the over all financial impact on the authority?
>> for fiscal year, 13, 14, we have not anticipated any fiscal impact. as i mention it is performance based. we typically don't see any adjustments more than 5 percent. okay >> of the salaries, right now the salaris for 13, 14 budget which the finance committee will see this month is approximately $5 million and that represents 2.2 percent of our budget. and it is hard to say how much it would actually be right now. and until we have the reviews and evaluations, great. thank you and i appreciate the work. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. i think that this is just a clarifying question. you see, you don't have an idea how it will impact the budget for this year and which means that i would assume that you don't know how it will be for the future years to come, correct? and it is performance base?
>> yes. >> and am i making an assumption that you have a set of criteria that you used to determine whether an employee is meeting their performance? >> right. there is a system for our evaluations and it is on a scale from one to five, based on how well they do. that is where the assessments for their own job performance salary increases would come from. >> you said that this is just salary based and it is also does not factor into the health benefits or anything like that? >> no, we are just bringing a recommendation for just increasing the salary range up and instead of adjusting any of the benefits. we are leaving the benefits alone, we feel like that is not just the right climate right now to take a look and ask for and increase of the benefits especially what is going on with the other agencies right now. >> great, that is going to be my next question, if there were any plans to pay or to review benefits in the future?
contributions, and employee contributions? >> right now, we are going for a pension reform, and we would like to wait until that is settled down before we take a look at the benefits. health premiums, of course, have been increasing over the past years. and we just like to wait and see what the new rates will become before we bring anything before you. i would rather have more information, that way when i come back before the board i can really recommend a solid number. you also will see just recommendations to the increase in benefits in our annual budget. right now, for fringe benefits, we are slightly increasing it less than 15 percent, just to accommodate for that range. but, that is not very much compared to our total budgets. again that is just 2.2 percent in totals just no salaries. >> one more final question. do you have an idea of the time line of that of which you will be bringing the benefits? >> if there is, if it increased
in that, it narrows us to bring it forward it would not be until later on this calendar, or later on during the year, maybe around september or october. we are on a calendar basis for our medical premiums. and so the new rates would not show up until about september or october and that is when the staff will sign up for the benefit plan that they would like and that way i can take a look at how much it will cost us from the next calendar year, our budget is on a fiscal year and at mid year we will take a look to see how much difference it is from what we have originally budgeted to what the actual cost s and within the year of budget amendment, i would bring any adjustments to you for your approvele. >> thank you. >> okay. and if no other comments or questions, from the panel? so we have this item before us, could we remain a motion? >> so moved. >> from commissioner campos and anwe will te that without einer
objection. thank you, colleagues. >> our next item is closed session item, so we will be going into closed session. madam clerk if you could call it and make the adjustments. >> item four, closed session, and update on public employ appointment hiring, executive director this is an information item. >> thank you, i have also requested that our interim executive director remain with us during this closed session as well and i think that is appropriate. she can provide proper context for happenings within the ta. >> okay, so, we are now going... >> okay. okay.
>> i am seeing a black screen. >> okay, thank you. >> so we are live, now. so we are now back in open session. >> right. >> i will see the live feed. >> i don't see that. >> i do see the live feed. we are back in open session, we are. colleagues could we have a motion not to reveal the contents of our closed session? okay. that is a motion from supervisor weiner and seconded by mar, and we will take